Mywebgrocer, Inc. v. Adlife Mktg. & Commc'ns Co.
District Court, D. Vermont
1Opinion of the Court
Defendant's second argument is that plaintiff is not a consumer because it did not buy goods or services from defendant. The argument is essentially that privity of contract between the parties is a necessary element of a consumer fraud claim. In Elkins v. Microsoft Corp. , 174 Vt. 328, 817 A.2d 9 (2002), the Vermont Supreme Court rejected the argument that the VCPA required privity between the parties. The court relied on the language of the VCPA which permits "any consumer" damaged by a false or fraudulent representation or practice to sue "the seller, solicitor or other violator ...." 9…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carter v. GugliuzziSupreme Court of Vermont · 1998
- Elkins v. Microsoft Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2002
- Poulin v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1986
- Foti Fuels, Inc. v. Kurrle Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2013
3Cited by7 opinions
- RSD Leasing, Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2023
- Adlife Marketing & Communications Company, Inc. v. Buckingham Brothers, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2020
- Adlife Marketing & Communications Compay, INC v. Karns Prime and Fancy Food LTDDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
- Concepts NREC, LLC v. QiuDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 2025
- Concepts NREC, LLC v. QiuDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 2025
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.